Steven Miller, his primary immigration adviser, may be the only person in America is more loathsome than cadet bone spurs. Considering his penchant for the truth and his empty bombast, combined with the fact that he has never served in the military he professes to love so much, we might as well call him "cadet bone spurs, jr.". On Fox Sunday this week, he defended the president's vile attack against The Squad, four freshman congresswomen, who all happen to be female and minorities, by stating that each of the four do not represent "our Western Values", as if this somehow gives both he and his mentor the right to attack them in vicious, racist terms. As is the case with his mentor, he did not mention what those "western values" might be. So it got me to wondering...
Perhaps Mr. Miller was referring to the discovery of the new world, by that font of western values, Christopher Columbus, who then enslaved and murdered the natives he found upon landing in Bimini and other points in the Caribbean from 1492 going forward, simply because he was apparently shocked that they were not Christian and did not look like him.
Maybe he was referring to the importation of Black slaves, kidnapped in their countries, or in many cases sold by their own countrymen into slavery and brought here against their will to serve their white masters, who were obviously leaning upon their knowledge of western values at the time, resulting ultimately in the Civil War, Jim Crow, segregation, discrimination throughout our western values society, and racism that persists to this day, because the Black slaves did not look like their masters or the old white guard that remains in power to this day in the halls of government.
Or maybe still, he was referring to that time honored western value of making treaties with Native Americans, breaking the treaties, removing them from their ancient lands, defiling their holy sites, and forcing them onto reservations where they are allowed to live in abject poverty and alcoholism to this day, all the while noting that they do not look like the rest of us.
If not, surely he was referring to that western value of stealing of land and homes of Japanese Americans, who all do not look like us, forcing them to what they called "Relocation Centers", but were, in fact, prisons (they all had barbed wire and armed guards. The "guests" were not allowed to leave. What would you call them?), simply because they were of Japanese ancestry and ignoring the fact that they were Americans. They did not, and do not look like us; therefore, they do not need an apology of any kind. Thank you for staying out of the way while under armed guard. For those who served in the military during this time, thank you for your service. Now go home and shut up.
Or how about that great show of western values when the MS St. Louis was turned away from all American ports in 1939, a ship containing approximately eight hundred Jews fleeing the Nazis, which was then sent back to Germany, where many of them were killed in the Holocaust, all because they did not sound like the rest of us.
So, in the interest of our fabulous history of western values, it would appear quite possible that he was referring to our humanitarian gesture of seizing immigrants of Central American countries and Mexico, fleeing violence and corruption in their countries, only to stumble into violence and corruption in this country, have their children ripped from their arms, be sent back home to undoubtedly become victims in their countries of origin, and have their sons and daughters lost in the system, all because they do not look like us.
They do not "share our Western Values".
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Rashida Tlaib
Ilhan Omar.
Ayanna Pressley
All Americans.
All minorities.
All women.
All do not look like "us".
All with names that do not sound like ours.
All citizens of this country.
All actively serving this country as members of Congress.
All of whom stand up for their rights and the rights of the people of this country as specifically granted in the very Constitution those old, rich, spoiled rotten white guys claim to revere, which ultimately means all four stand for the rights of the rest of us, even those spoiled rotten bastards.
So now you know whenever cadet bone spurs and cadet bone spurs, jr. talk about "Western Values", precisely what they are actually talking about.
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
Sunday, July 21, 2019
the real work starts now
This is not an endorsement of any one particular candidate, unless you figure that this amounts to an endorsement of whomever ends up running against cadet bone spurs. This includes anyone who may run against him in the republican primaries.
There has been a lost of gnashing of teeth already over positions taken by the announced candidates on the left for president, which includes just about every registered democrat in the country, with the possible exception of Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, the guy at the deli counter down the street, my mother and me. I would note that I would highly endorse my mother over me in case you are thinking of drafting somebody to run. Come to think of it, I would endorse the guy at the deli counter, Captain Kangeroo and either of my cats over me. But I digress...
Some of the positions taken by the democratic candidates to date are nice, such as universal healthcare, forgiveness of student debt, easing of immigration imposed by this administration, etc. They are not, however, the kinds of positions that are going to play well with moderate republicans, if there are any left, and independents, the very core group needed to overcome the possibility of a second term. Tom Friedman noted in his column in the Times last week that the democrats need to nominate somebody sane, who can rationally set forth a reasonable platform that can appeal not just to a majority of voters, but a majority of voters in the strategic states needed to achieve an electoral majority.
And as we are all too painfully aware, it is an electoral majority that counts. We know there are a number of states that he knows he cannot win, and will therefore ignore or simply insult as the election approaches. California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington and Connecticut will not be in his radar during the next election cycle, if only to invoke the cry of sanctuary cities and democrat socialists run amok. Throw in Oregon, New Jersey and Rhode Island, and you have 139 electoral votes. That leaves the democrats just a tad more than halfway there. NBC News and the New York Times have both noted recently that the strategy being evoked by the administration could further polarize the country to the extent of allowing him to lose the popular vote by more than five million this time, but still come away with the electoral majority, and thereby the election. For the good of this country; heck, for the good of mankind in general, we cannot allow this to happen. I cannot stress this enough.
WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.
So how do we go about doing this, getting the other 131 electoral votes needed and ending this nightmare?
1. As Tom Friedman and others have said, we must start by having the democrats nominate somebody sane, who can articulate reasonable policies in reasonable terms, without alienating all but the most hardcore MAGA, whose vote nobody else is getting, even if cadet bone spurs were to kidnap their first born and sell the child into slavery. So don't worry about alienating a hardcore MAGA anyway. They are not going to vote for your candidate regardless of what you, he or anyone else says or doees.
But in the process do not alienate a MAGA in such a way that alienates a moderate, who did not like him in 2016, but did so anyway because he/she could not bring him/herself to vote for her. That's the vote we need.
2. He is going to try to drag this through the mud, even worse than the last election, because frankly, he really does not have much of anything else. By the time this one is over, we are all going to need to shower for a month. So...
a. The nominated candidate must stay above the fray, if only to the extent of pointing out that he has no positions, just mudslinging. The candidate has to come across as sane and level headed. The candidate has to be the one who does not stoop to his level. This does not mean we do not have attack dogs, simply that the candidate and his slate are not those dogs. We already know who the attack dogs are. He has chosen them for us, and they will do a great job attacking him, mostly because they are ready, willing and able to do it, and do it better than he can. Since he has chosen to attack "The Squad", let him. Let him go after four freshman congresswomen, minorities all, one of whom will actually be on the ticket. Let him continue to be distracted by these four women, all of whom are smarter than he is, and who are willing to attack back, and keep him from going after the actual candidate. As he attacks the four women, feel free to come to their defense and point out the he is concentrating on attacking four minority woman, simply because they are minority women, and ignoring important issues of the day. But keep the candidate out of it.
b. This means the candidate has to stick to issues that matter, where cadet bone spurs has no inkling how to talk, let alone set forth what he stands for. For nearly four years now, he has told us he is going to introduce grand and glorious initiatives. The best health care. The best intrastructure. The best farm bill. The best trade policy. The details never come out. Nobody ever asks him what the details are or how he intends to propose and pass anything. When he is pressed, he falls back on "you will see the details when it comes out, and believe me, you will love it". Only the details almost never come out. When they sometimes do, the details are always a variation of tax cuts for the rich. Want great health care? Tax cuts for the rich. Want tax reform? Tax cuts for the rich. Infrastructure? Privatize infrastructure, and then cut taxes on the rich folks who get the contracts. The candidate must have reasonable proposals, perhaps not going as far as universal health care, which I personally would love to see, but know will not get passed at this time. I'll settle for now for a strengthening of Obamacare and further expansion of medicaid as called for under the ACA. Stress the policies and make him debate the policies, not the junk. If he tries to put the junk out there in the debates, leave him stranded out there with his garbage.
c. About the only real issue he will talk about, one that does not involve trashing everybody else, is the economy. Yes, on the surface the economy is doing fine, at least if all you look at in the economy is the Dow Jones average and the unemployment rate. We can concede the Dow and the unemployment rate, while noting that when he was sworn in, the economy was doing fine, and he has really done nothing to spur anything further. Tax cuts for billionaires has a bill coming due that is going to drag everyone else down soon, and there will be nobody to blame when that happens. So let him crow about the Dow and the unemployment rate. Point out that poor paying jobs may make for a low unemployment rate, but do not put sufficient food on the table. Point out the fact that real wages are not going up, that farmers are going under due to his trade polices, that he has fostered class warfare through his tax policies. Let him talk about his economy -- and then talk about the economy effecting real people. You know, everybody else.
3. We know that he will try to find a way to at least pit the country against itself. White against Black. Straight against LBGTQ. Hispanics, Muslims, anyone he does not like or does not consider worthy of his efforts, such as they are, will all be in the cross hairs. This considered, either the candidate or the candidate's running mate must be a member of one of the target communities. It might even be nice if both the candidate and the running mate are one of the target communities. A candidate on the ticket who appeals to communities that he has deliberately alienated will solve the problem from the last election of these communities not liking him, but feeling alienated or taken for granted by Hilary or by the way she campaigned. I have frequently asked people what they believe the result of the election would have been in 2016 if Hilary had picked Cory Booker for her running mate, rather than rewarding Tom Kaine for a lifetime of political loyalty to the Clintons. A Black man or woman on the ticket, either on top or in support, could effectively blunt a portion of his racist slime, while at the same time, bringing out the minority vote.
4. Do not get distracted by the fact that your candidate does not end up being the nominee. A major reason he is now the president is that Bernie and his supporters thought they were cheated by the process the last time around, and therefore, would not support her. Then there were those who would not support Hilary under any circumstances, even as they knew that any vote that was not for her in the last election was a vote for him, so they wrote in Joe Biden, even though he was not running and could not win. Or Bernie. Or Mickey Mouse. I can already see the lines forming again, once again in a circular firing squad, as the Bernie supporters vow not to support any other candidate, the progressives vow not to support a candidate who does not hew to every progressive issue -- as they see it. Those of you doing this must stop. You are only paving the way for four more years of him. As I said here on November 4, 2018:
"There is no perfect candidate.
"There is no perfect cause.
"If you are waiting for either before you head to the polls, you will never vote.
"And that is why he is president today".
We have already seen what two and a half years of him have brought. We are stuck holding our breath that he does not do more in the next one and a half years of his term, regardless of election results.
Pull together.
WE SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE ANOTHER FOUR YEARS OF THIS.
There has been a lost of gnashing of teeth already over positions taken by the announced candidates on the left for president, which includes just about every registered democrat in the country, with the possible exception of Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, the guy at the deli counter down the street, my mother and me. I would note that I would highly endorse my mother over me in case you are thinking of drafting somebody to run. Come to think of it, I would endorse the guy at the deli counter, Captain Kangeroo and either of my cats over me. But I digress...
Some of the positions taken by the democratic candidates to date are nice, such as universal healthcare, forgiveness of student debt, easing of immigration imposed by this administration, etc. They are not, however, the kinds of positions that are going to play well with moderate republicans, if there are any left, and independents, the very core group needed to overcome the possibility of a second term. Tom Friedman noted in his column in the Times last week that the democrats need to nominate somebody sane, who can rationally set forth a reasonable platform that can appeal not just to a majority of voters, but a majority of voters in the strategic states needed to achieve an electoral majority.
And as we are all too painfully aware, it is an electoral majority that counts. We know there are a number of states that he knows he cannot win, and will therefore ignore or simply insult as the election approaches. California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington and Connecticut will not be in his radar during the next election cycle, if only to invoke the cry of sanctuary cities and democrat socialists run amok. Throw in Oregon, New Jersey and Rhode Island, and you have 139 electoral votes. That leaves the democrats just a tad more than halfway there. NBC News and the New York Times have both noted recently that the strategy being evoked by the administration could further polarize the country to the extent of allowing him to lose the popular vote by more than five million this time, but still come away with the electoral majority, and thereby the election. For the good of this country; heck, for the good of mankind in general, we cannot allow this to happen. I cannot stress this enough.
WE CANNOT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.
So how do we go about doing this, getting the other 131 electoral votes needed and ending this nightmare?
1. As Tom Friedman and others have said, we must start by having the democrats nominate somebody sane, who can articulate reasonable policies in reasonable terms, without alienating all but the most hardcore MAGA, whose vote nobody else is getting, even if cadet bone spurs were to kidnap their first born and sell the child into slavery. So don't worry about alienating a hardcore MAGA anyway. They are not going to vote for your candidate regardless of what you, he or anyone else says or doees.
But in the process do not alienate a MAGA in such a way that alienates a moderate, who did not like him in 2016, but did so anyway because he/she could not bring him/herself to vote for her. That's the vote we need.
2. He is going to try to drag this through the mud, even worse than the last election, because frankly, he really does not have much of anything else. By the time this one is over, we are all going to need to shower for a month. So...
a. The nominated candidate must stay above the fray, if only to the extent of pointing out that he has no positions, just mudslinging. The candidate has to come across as sane and level headed. The candidate has to be the one who does not stoop to his level. This does not mean we do not have attack dogs, simply that the candidate and his slate are not those dogs. We already know who the attack dogs are. He has chosen them for us, and they will do a great job attacking him, mostly because they are ready, willing and able to do it, and do it better than he can. Since he has chosen to attack "The Squad", let him. Let him go after four freshman congresswomen, minorities all, one of whom will actually be on the ticket. Let him continue to be distracted by these four women, all of whom are smarter than he is, and who are willing to attack back, and keep him from going after the actual candidate. As he attacks the four women, feel free to come to their defense and point out the he is concentrating on attacking four minority woman, simply because they are minority women, and ignoring important issues of the day. But keep the candidate out of it.
b. This means the candidate has to stick to issues that matter, where cadet bone spurs has no inkling how to talk, let alone set forth what he stands for. For nearly four years now, he has told us he is going to introduce grand and glorious initiatives. The best health care. The best intrastructure. The best farm bill. The best trade policy. The details never come out. Nobody ever asks him what the details are or how he intends to propose and pass anything. When he is pressed, he falls back on "you will see the details when it comes out, and believe me, you will love it". Only the details almost never come out. When they sometimes do, the details are always a variation of tax cuts for the rich. Want great health care? Tax cuts for the rich. Want tax reform? Tax cuts for the rich. Infrastructure? Privatize infrastructure, and then cut taxes on the rich folks who get the contracts. The candidate must have reasonable proposals, perhaps not going as far as universal health care, which I personally would love to see, but know will not get passed at this time. I'll settle for now for a strengthening of Obamacare and further expansion of medicaid as called for under the ACA. Stress the policies and make him debate the policies, not the junk. If he tries to put the junk out there in the debates, leave him stranded out there with his garbage.
c. About the only real issue he will talk about, one that does not involve trashing everybody else, is the economy. Yes, on the surface the economy is doing fine, at least if all you look at in the economy is the Dow Jones average and the unemployment rate. We can concede the Dow and the unemployment rate, while noting that when he was sworn in, the economy was doing fine, and he has really done nothing to spur anything further. Tax cuts for billionaires has a bill coming due that is going to drag everyone else down soon, and there will be nobody to blame when that happens. So let him crow about the Dow and the unemployment rate. Point out that poor paying jobs may make for a low unemployment rate, but do not put sufficient food on the table. Point out the fact that real wages are not going up, that farmers are going under due to his trade polices, that he has fostered class warfare through his tax policies. Let him talk about his economy -- and then talk about the economy effecting real people. You know, everybody else.
3. We know that he will try to find a way to at least pit the country against itself. White against Black. Straight against LBGTQ. Hispanics, Muslims, anyone he does not like or does not consider worthy of his efforts, such as they are, will all be in the cross hairs. This considered, either the candidate or the candidate's running mate must be a member of one of the target communities. It might even be nice if both the candidate and the running mate are one of the target communities. A candidate on the ticket who appeals to communities that he has deliberately alienated will solve the problem from the last election of these communities not liking him, but feeling alienated or taken for granted by Hilary or by the way she campaigned. I have frequently asked people what they believe the result of the election would have been in 2016 if Hilary had picked Cory Booker for her running mate, rather than rewarding Tom Kaine for a lifetime of political loyalty to the Clintons. A Black man or woman on the ticket, either on top or in support, could effectively blunt a portion of his racist slime, while at the same time, bringing out the minority vote.
4. Do not get distracted by the fact that your candidate does not end up being the nominee. A major reason he is now the president is that Bernie and his supporters thought they were cheated by the process the last time around, and therefore, would not support her. Then there were those who would not support Hilary under any circumstances, even as they knew that any vote that was not for her in the last election was a vote for him, so they wrote in Joe Biden, even though he was not running and could not win. Or Bernie. Or Mickey Mouse. I can already see the lines forming again, once again in a circular firing squad, as the Bernie supporters vow not to support any other candidate, the progressives vow not to support a candidate who does not hew to every progressive issue -- as they see it. Those of you doing this must stop. You are only paving the way for four more years of him. As I said here on November 4, 2018:
"There is no perfect candidate.
"There is no perfect cause.
"If you are waiting for either before you head to the polls, you will never vote.
"And that is why he is president today".
We have already seen what two and a half years of him have brought. We are stuck holding our breath that he does not do more in the next one and a half years of his term, regardless of election results.
Pull together.
WE SIMPLY CANNOT HAVE ANOTHER FOUR YEARS OF THIS.
Monday, June 24, 2019
concentration camps and labels
One of the most nonsensical arguments in years is ramping up and going viral around the country, maybe even around the world for that matter.
Is it a concentration camp? Is it a detention camp? Is it summer camp? Does it really make a difference what we are calling what is going on at our southern border courtesy of this administration?
The use of the term "concentration camp" is fraught with historical significance and imagery. The administration apologists are screeching that it is an insult to Jews around the world, and especially the survivors of the Holocaust to call them concentration camps. This having been said, I don't hear a word from these same people about what is going on in those camps. I would further note that I do not speak for an entire people; however, I am a Jew, and I am one of the lucky ones. The part of my family that got out in time included my father's parents. The rest of the family is gone. On behalf of at least myself, I would note that this Jew is not at all insulted that some are calling these abominations concentration camps. I also do not believe anyone should be insulted by the truth ingrained in the term as it applies to what is going on.
But...
Maybe it is too much for some people to call what is going on at our southern border concentration camp. Maybe we ought to hold off on calling the hellholes and the conditions that immigrants, and especially immigrant children are being held under "concentration camps". Maybe by doing that, we are allowing them to get away with hijacking the argument and getting us all stuck in semantics, thereby ignoring the real problem.
And we all know what the real problem is.
The real problem is not what you call these hellholes. You don't like "concentration camp"? Fine. I don't imagine you want to follow Laura Ingraham and call them "summer camp". At least at the summer camps I attended and worked at, they made you shower, they made you brush your teeth, they gave you a real bed to sleep in, even if it was not all that comfortable, and they turned out the lights at night so you had a fighting chance to get some sleep. At summer camp, they also took pains to make sure you were writing regularly to your parents, and making efforts to keep parents advised as to how you were doing.
So call them what you want. Concentration Camps. Detention Centers. Summer Camps. Hellholes. Heck, call them the White House Annex for Marauding Hordes of Displaced Hispanic Children.
Just don't get caught up in arguing semantics and lose sight of the real atrocities taking place right here, right now, and right in front of us.
We are separating children, including infants and toddlers, from their families all because their parents came here seeking asylum from the violence and poverty of their own countries. While statistical certainty exists to believe that not every single one of those seeking to come to this country are angels, our history, our heritage, indeed what makes this country the United States of America is that we accept those seeking asylum into this great melting pot, thereby enriching us with their customs and traditions, and expanding the greatness of what is this country. What we ought to be doing is welcoming these people with open arms into our society. Helping them assimilate and start new and productive lives here.
Instead, we are treating them like animals. No, we are treating them worse than animals. At least we feed our pets, and if they are sick, we take them to the vet. We are now starving children. We have created an entire generation of young people who are likely to carry the scars of their detention in these hellholes the rest of their lives, regardless of how this now turns out. We are reading stories of ten year olds having to cuddle and nurture two year olds, all the while having to remind us that they are children too. Do we really need to be reading this sort of thing? Then we are reading about volunteers bringing food, clothing, soaps, diapers, etc., to these hellholes, only to be denied entry and only to have the donations refused.
So do not get distracted by the greatest distraction machine ever to manipulate public opinion from what really matters. Do not get caught up in what to call this. Regardless of label, it is an atrocity and a crime against humanity.
Do not let those who try to distract and say this would stop if only the Democrats would agree to immigration reform. Remember, this administration and their apologists have the ability at any time to stop this. You do not commit acts of barbarity to score political points at the expense of children. This is not American. This is not who we ever were, let alone who we aspire to be.
Remember when...
Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
The wretched refuse of your teeming shores
Send these, the homeless tempest tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door
Emma Lazarus must be weeping.
So should the rest of us.
Is it a concentration camp? Is it a detention camp? Is it summer camp? Does it really make a difference what we are calling what is going on at our southern border courtesy of this administration?
The use of the term "concentration camp" is fraught with historical significance and imagery. The administration apologists are screeching that it is an insult to Jews around the world, and especially the survivors of the Holocaust to call them concentration camps. This having been said, I don't hear a word from these same people about what is going on in those camps. I would further note that I do not speak for an entire people; however, I am a Jew, and I am one of the lucky ones. The part of my family that got out in time included my father's parents. The rest of the family is gone. On behalf of at least myself, I would note that this Jew is not at all insulted that some are calling these abominations concentration camps. I also do not believe anyone should be insulted by the truth ingrained in the term as it applies to what is going on.
But...
Maybe it is too much for some people to call what is going on at our southern border concentration camp. Maybe we ought to hold off on calling the hellholes and the conditions that immigrants, and especially immigrant children are being held under "concentration camps". Maybe by doing that, we are allowing them to get away with hijacking the argument and getting us all stuck in semantics, thereby ignoring the real problem.
And we all know what the real problem is.
The real problem is not what you call these hellholes. You don't like "concentration camp"? Fine. I don't imagine you want to follow Laura Ingraham and call them "summer camp". At least at the summer camps I attended and worked at, they made you shower, they made you brush your teeth, they gave you a real bed to sleep in, even if it was not all that comfortable, and they turned out the lights at night so you had a fighting chance to get some sleep. At summer camp, they also took pains to make sure you were writing regularly to your parents, and making efforts to keep parents advised as to how you were doing.
So call them what you want. Concentration Camps. Detention Centers. Summer Camps. Hellholes. Heck, call them the White House Annex for Marauding Hordes of Displaced Hispanic Children.
Just don't get caught up in arguing semantics and lose sight of the real atrocities taking place right here, right now, and right in front of us.
We are separating children, including infants and toddlers, from their families all because their parents came here seeking asylum from the violence and poverty of their own countries. While statistical certainty exists to believe that not every single one of those seeking to come to this country are angels, our history, our heritage, indeed what makes this country the United States of America is that we accept those seeking asylum into this great melting pot, thereby enriching us with their customs and traditions, and expanding the greatness of what is this country. What we ought to be doing is welcoming these people with open arms into our society. Helping them assimilate and start new and productive lives here.
Instead, we are treating them like animals. No, we are treating them worse than animals. At least we feed our pets, and if they are sick, we take them to the vet. We are now starving children. We have created an entire generation of young people who are likely to carry the scars of their detention in these hellholes the rest of their lives, regardless of how this now turns out. We are reading stories of ten year olds having to cuddle and nurture two year olds, all the while having to remind us that they are children too. Do we really need to be reading this sort of thing? Then we are reading about volunteers bringing food, clothing, soaps, diapers, etc., to these hellholes, only to be denied entry and only to have the donations refused.
So do not get distracted by the greatest distraction machine ever to manipulate public opinion from what really matters. Do not get caught up in what to call this. Regardless of label, it is an atrocity and a crime against humanity.
Do not let those who try to distract and say this would stop if only the Democrats would agree to immigration reform. Remember, this administration and their apologists have the ability at any time to stop this. You do not commit acts of barbarity to score political points at the expense of children. This is not American. This is not who we ever were, let alone who we aspire to be.
Remember when...
Give me your tired, your poor
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free
The wretched refuse of your teeming shores
Send these, the homeless tempest tossed to me
I lift my lamp beside the golden door
Emma Lazarus must be weeping.
So should the rest of us.
Monday, December 31, 2018
2018, the year the sky turned green
When I was in law school, we were presented a series of lectures by Prof. Irving Younger on trial technique. In one of the lectures, Prof. Younger emphasized that you could get a jury to believe just about anything, as long as you kept repeating it, and repeating it more and more forcefully. To paraphrase, you should look the jury straight in the eye and announce the sky is green. After they all laugh at you, look them straight in the eye, pound your fist on the lectern and yell that the sky is green. Half will still be laughing, but half will now be looking out the window. At this point, bulge out your eyes if you can, while you jump up and down, pound both fists on the lectern and scream as loud as you can that the sky is green. From this point on, you will never again be able to convince the members of that jury that the sky is blue.
As 2018 comes to an end, I just looked out the window.
For much of America, the sky is green.
We have lived through yet another series of mindless shootings where our friends and neighbors were killed while worshiping, relaxing at a nightclub or simply were gunned down attending school, and our so called leaders tell us that the only way to stop this carnage is to put more guns on the streets, rather than keep them out of the hands of those who mean us harm.
We are told that social security and medicaid are going bankrupt. Rather than solve the problems by returning funds plundered from the social security trust fund or by raising the threshold on social security payments throughout the year so that the super rich pay the same percentage of their income as the rest of us, we are told by those same so called leaders that the only way to save the solvency of social security and medicaid is by cutting the benefits paid to recipients after a lifetime of contributions made under the promise of payments in our golden years.
We are told that there is no right to clean water, clean air, clean energy, all so that a few corporations can make a few more bucks than they already do.
We are also told that there is no right to medical care, but there is a right to go bankrupt if one has the misfortune of getting sick. Do not tell me it is the fault of ones who do not have medical coverage. I know plenty of people who have medical coverage who now owe plenty of money to medical care providers simply because their medical insurance decided not to pay the bills their contract certainly seemed to imply were covered under their policy. Do not tell me this is the fault of the prior administration. The present administration and their enablers in Congress, once again, our so called leaders, have now spent the better part of two years trying desperately to tear down what protections were available under Obamacare without offering anything in its place, but repeated statements that they had a much better plan, a plan they never bothered to let us in on the specifics.
The sky is green.
We are told that trade wars are our best friend and are easy to win. So the price of consumer products go up and our farmers are starving because they now have no market for their crops. And our so called leader's solution is to spend billions of our dollars to bail out the farmers who would not have needed any government largess if not for the decision of our so called leader to impose tariffs unilaterally, not just against our international rivals and competitors, but against our friends as well.
Our so called leaders tell us that they are the party of family values. At the same time, they separate children, including toddlers and infants, from their parents as those parents try to enter this country in search of the same thing our parents and grandparents came here for -- a better life for their family. They separate these innocent children from their parents with no plan on how or where to reunite them in the future. Then they make conditions the children -- and their parents for that matter -- are kept under that are so barbaric that simply calling the conditions barbaric actually manages to soft sell and cheapen the term. And then these so called leaders tell us the families deserved this because they did not come here legally, ignoring the fact that the right to seek asylum has been ingrained in the laws and the very fabric of this country and humanity -- at least until the last year or so.
We are pulling out of alliances that have protected the world from mass conflagration for over seventy years. Our European allies say they can no longer count on us to be the protector of the free world. Our so called leader gets laughed at out loud while speaking at the General Assembly of the United Nations. We make excuses for foreign terrorist countries murdering our own in an embassy. We abandon an entire region just to fulfill a misguided campaign promise. And our so called leaders tell us we have never been respected as much by foreign countries than we are now.
The sky is deep green.
When the stock market goes up, we are told it is entirely his doing. When it then tanks, it is entirely the fault of career bankers and captains of industry who do not understand economics the way he does.
I did not sleep with any of those women. They were all lying. They were not paid for their silence. I did not pay them for their silence. If they were paid off, it was not by me and I knew nothing about it. Well maybe I knew a little about it. Okay, I paid them off, but it was not to influence an election. Besides, it was a private transaction that should be none of anyone else's business.
I will nominate only the best and brightest. Or at least the best and brightest that are willing to kiss my ass, fall on their swords so I don't have to and have the resources to downplay their corruption, their sexual misconduct, their frauds, their illegal and unethical business practices and their morals.
Deep, deep green.
And now we are faced with a shutdown of government functions all to fund a wall that is unnecessary and immoral. Our so called leaders tell us it is better to shut down basic, vital government functions, while forcing the rank and file government workers to show up and work anyway while not getting paid. He publicly states that he will be the one to impose a shutdown and he will be the one to take all the blame. And once the shutdown he singlehandedly started and said he would take on all responsibility for actually commences, he blames everybody else.
I just looked out the window again. We are closing in on the end of 2018 and the beginning of the new year. I am searching for blue in the sky.
I am not sure I will see it.
We have lived through yet another series of mindless shootings where our friends and neighbors were killed while worshiping, relaxing at a nightclub or simply were gunned down attending school, and our so called leaders tell us that the only way to stop this carnage is to put more guns on the streets, rather than keep them out of the hands of those who mean us harm.
We are told that social security and medicaid are going bankrupt. Rather than solve the problems by returning funds plundered from the social security trust fund or by raising the threshold on social security payments throughout the year so that the super rich pay the same percentage of their income as the rest of us, we are told by those same so called leaders that the only way to save the solvency of social security and medicaid is by cutting the benefits paid to recipients after a lifetime of contributions made under the promise of payments in our golden years.
We are told that there is no right to clean water, clean air, clean energy, all so that a few corporations can make a few more bucks than they already do.
We are also told that there is no right to medical care, but there is a right to go bankrupt if one has the misfortune of getting sick. Do not tell me it is the fault of ones who do not have medical coverage. I know plenty of people who have medical coverage who now owe plenty of money to medical care providers simply because their medical insurance decided not to pay the bills their contract certainly seemed to imply were covered under their policy. Do not tell me this is the fault of the prior administration. The present administration and their enablers in Congress, once again, our so called leaders, have now spent the better part of two years trying desperately to tear down what protections were available under Obamacare without offering anything in its place, but repeated statements that they had a much better plan, a plan they never bothered to let us in on the specifics.
The sky is green.
We are told that trade wars are our best friend and are easy to win. So the price of consumer products go up and our farmers are starving because they now have no market for their crops. And our so called leader's solution is to spend billions of our dollars to bail out the farmers who would not have needed any government largess if not for the decision of our so called leader to impose tariffs unilaterally, not just against our international rivals and competitors, but against our friends as well.
Our so called leaders tell us that they are the party of family values. At the same time, they separate children, including toddlers and infants, from their parents as those parents try to enter this country in search of the same thing our parents and grandparents came here for -- a better life for their family. They separate these innocent children from their parents with no plan on how or where to reunite them in the future. Then they make conditions the children -- and their parents for that matter -- are kept under that are so barbaric that simply calling the conditions barbaric actually manages to soft sell and cheapen the term. And then these so called leaders tell us the families deserved this because they did not come here legally, ignoring the fact that the right to seek asylum has been ingrained in the laws and the very fabric of this country and humanity -- at least until the last year or so.
We are pulling out of alliances that have protected the world from mass conflagration for over seventy years. Our European allies say they can no longer count on us to be the protector of the free world. Our so called leader gets laughed at out loud while speaking at the General Assembly of the United Nations. We make excuses for foreign terrorist countries murdering our own in an embassy. We abandon an entire region just to fulfill a misguided campaign promise. And our so called leaders tell us we have never been respected as much by foreign countries than we are now.
The sky is deep green.
When the stock market goes up, we are told it is entirely his doing. When it then tanks, it is entirely the fault of career bankers and captains of industry who do not understand economics the way he does.
I did not sleep with any of those women. They were all lying. They were not paid for their silence. I did not pay them for their silence. If they were paid off, it was not by me and I knew nothing about it. Well maybe I knew a little about it. Okay, I paid them off, but it was not to influence an election. Besides, it was a private transaction that should be none of anyone else's business.
I will nominate only the best and brightest. Or at least the best and brightest that are willing to kiss my ass, fall on their swords so I don't have to and have the resources to downplay their corruption, their sexual misconduct, their frauds, their illegal and unethical business practices and their morals.
Deep, deep green.
And now we are faced with a shutdown of government functions all to fund a wall that is unnecessary and immoral. Our so called leaders tell us it is better to shut down basic, vital government functions, while forcing the rank and file government workers to show up and work anyway while not getting paid. He publicly states that he will be the one to impose a shutdown and he will be the one to take all the blame. And once the shutdown he singlehandedly started and said he would take on all responsibility for actually commences, he blames everybody else.
I just looked out the window again. We are closing in on the end of 2018 and the beginning of the new year. I am searching for blue in the sky.
I am not sure I will see it.
Sunday, November 4, 2018
vote
There is no perfect candidate.
There is no perfect cause.
If you are waiting for either before you head to the polls, you will never vote.
And that is why he is president today.
Two years ago, we were given an imperfect choice. After a bruising primary, too many were left feeling left out by a system that they believed was rigged to coronate Hilary Clinton as the nominee on the left. Bernie supporters, mortified by Hilary, and perhaps simply not ready to support anyone but Bernie, stayed home. Hilary was too much like Bill. Bill represented an old order they no longer believed in. Hilary represented a sense of self-entitlement. Hilary was in the eyes of many, a throw back to the back rooms of yore and corrupt beyond redemption.
I did not believe this. I did not believe she was a good candidate either, and would have preferred another nominee from the left. But Hilary is what we got. And Hilary is who I voted for.
But many told me they could not in good conscience vote for her, regardless of him.
To be sure, they could not vote for him either. They saw in him what we all see in him to this day.
But they could not vote for her.
While they campaigned against him and everything he stood for and stands for to this day, they still could not pull the lever for her.
So they voted for Johnson. Or wrote in Biden. Or Bernie. Or Mickey Mouse.
Or worse, they stayed home.
And every one of those votes was a vote for him, because they were not a vote against him.
Even the ones who stayed home.
All because she was not the perfect candidate.
There is no perfect candidate.
On Tuesday, there is no perfect candidate.
But there is a way to make sure we do not make the same mistake.
By not voting in 2016, by voting a symbolic gesture of defiance, we were, in effect, voting for him, and we ended up with him.
And as a result, we ended up with:
A government that cares more for billionaires and multinational corporations than for the rest of us, and so they "reformed" the tax system on the backs of the rest of us to the big boys' benefit.
A government in which the ends justify the means, in which winning, whatever that means, takes precedence over doing what is right.
A government that does not believe in climate change, and will let us all die rather than address it, even those billionaires, just so that they do not have to make the hard choices to save the planet.
A government that thinks nothing of separating children from their families just because they don't look like us, and they don't sound like us.
A government that does not believe that health care is a fundamental right of all people.
A government that does not believe that voting is a fundamental right of all people, especially if they think some of those people are going to vote against them.
A government that thinks it can define away the very existence of a chunk of society that is larger than they think simply due to an outmoded form of bigotry and a colossal show of ignorance.
A government that thinks they have the right to tell you what to do with your own body if you are a woman.
A government that thinks they have the right to tell you who you are entitled to fall in love with and marry.
A government in which it is okay to assault women because it's just boys being boys.
A government in which people who seek to stand up for their rights and the rights of others are arrested, threatened with arrest or vilified in terms we used to send children to detention for if they dared say in school.
A government in which science and intellectual reasoning are either ignored or considered a weakness.
A government in which autocrats, fascists, madmen and tyrants are held in higher esteem than our oldest and most trusted allies.
A government that thinks there are many fine people among nazis or members of the ku klux klan.
A government that believes that a free press, the very bedrock of our Constitution, is the enemy of the people.
A government that allows people to be shot while attending a music festival, children to be shot over and over again while attending school, people to be shot while praying, all so gun manufacturers can make more money.
Look at this list. This is what you voted for last time, or what you might vote for again, all because there is no perfect candidate.
Look at the list.
There is no perfect candidate.
There is no perfect cause.
There is what you believe in, and what direction you believe the country should take. If you vote, you can influence in your way, the only way the Constitution gives you, the direction we go in. If you do not vote because there is no perfect candidate or perfect cause, you will have once again voted for him, and you will have gotten what you deserve.
Look at that list and think of other items that could also be on that list.
There is no perfect candidate.
But each of us can be that perfect citizen.
VOTE. VOTE. VOTE.
There is no perfect cause.
If you are waiting for either before you head to the polls, you will never vote.
And that is why he is president today.
Two years ago, we were given an imperfect choice. After a bruising primary, too many were left feeling left out by a system that they believed was rigged to coronate Hilary Clinton as the nominee on the left. Bernie supporters, mortified by Hilary, and perhaps simply not ready to support anyone but Bernie, stayed home. Hilary was too much like Bill. Bill represented an old order they no longer believed in. Hilary represented a sense of self-entitlement. Hilary was in the eyes of many, a throw back to the back rooms of yore and corrupt beyond redemption.
I did not believe this. I did not believe she was a good candidate either, and would have preferred another nominee from the left. But Hilary is what we got. And Hilary is who I voted for.
But many told me they could not in good conscience vote for her, regardless of him.
To be sure, they could not vote for him either. They saw in him what we all see in him to this day.
But they could not vote for her.
While they campaigned against him and everything he stood for and stands for to this day, they still could not pull the lever for her.
So they voted for Johnson. Or wrote in Biden. Or Bernie. Or Mickey Mouse.
Or worse, they stayed home.
And every one of those votes was a vote for him, because they were not a vote against him.
Even the ones who stayed home.
All because she was not the perfect candidate.
There is no perfect candidate.
On Tuesday, there is no perfect candidate.
But there is a way to make sure we do not make the same mistake.
By not voting in 2016, by voting a symbolic gesture of defiance, we were, in effect, voting for him, and we ended up with him.
And as a result, we ended up with:
A government that cares more for billionaires and multinational corporations than for the rest of us, and so they "reformed" the tax system on the backs of the rest of us to the big boys' benefit.
A government in which the ends justify the means, in which winning, whatever that means, takes precedence over doing what is right.
A government that does not believe in climate change, and will let us all die rather than address it, even those billionaires, just so that they do not have to make the hard choices to save the planet.
A government that thinks nothing of separating children from their families just because they don't look like us, and they don't sound like us.
A government that does not believe that health care is a fundamental right of all people.
A government that does not believe that voting is a fundamental right of all people, especially if they think some of those people are going to vote against them.
A government that thinks it can define away the very existence of a chunk of society that is larger than they think simply due to an outmoded form of bigotry and a colossal show of ignorance.
A government that thinks they have the right to tell you what to do with your own body if you are a woman.
A government that thinks they have the right to tell you who you are entitled to fall in love with and marry.
A government in which it is okay to assault women because it's just boys being boys.
A government in which people who seek to stand up for their rights and the rights of others are arrested, threatened with arrest or vilified in terms we used to send children to detention for if they dared say in school.
A government in which science and intellectual reasoning are either ignored or considered a weakness.
A government in which autocrats, fascists, madmen and tyrants are held in higher esteem than our oldest and most trusted allies.
A government that thinks there are many fine people among nazis or members of the ku klux klan.
A government that believes that a free press, the very bedrock of our Constitution, is the enemy of the people.
A government that allows people to be shot while attending a music festival, children to be shot over and over again while attending school, people to be shot while praying, all so gun manufacturers can make more money.
Look at this list. This is what you voted for last time, or what you might vote for again, all because there is no perfect candidate.
Look at the list.
There is no perfect candidate.
There is no perfect cause.
There is what you believe in, and what direction you believe the country should take. If you vote, you can influence in your way, the only way the Constitution gives you, the direction we go in. If you do not vote because there is no perfect candidate or perfect cause, you will have once again voted for him, and you will have gotten what you deserve.
Look at that list and think of other items that could also be on that list.
There is no perfect candidate.
But each of us can be that perfect citizen.
VOTE. VOTE. VOTE.
Saturday, November 3, 2018
Top Ten Worst Persons in the World -- U.S. Political Version
Top Ten Worst Persons in the World -- U.S. Political Version
I used the watch the Keith Olberman show on MSNBC, primarily because he would end each day with a bit listing of the three worst persons in the world for that day. As we head into midterm election day, inspired by Mr. Olberman, I offer my top ten worst people in the world, U.S. political version, although you may believe these are the bottom ten in a world of bottom feeders.
I note that others will obviously have their own list. You will note there are no democrats on this list. There are certainly any number of awful people in the world and in this country who are liberal/democrats in nature and who under ordinary circumstances would certainly merit a mention on this list. I am sure you would include any number of them on your own list; however, this is my list, and this year, the political right has emerged as the dominant horror. Given their never ending thirst for victory over anything else, I imagine the GOP will be proud to have achieved a shut out on this list.
Honorable mentions herein include Paul Ryan, who appears to have at least some instincts for decency, which may explain why he is giving up his post as Speaker of the House without trying to get re-elected. Mr. Ryan was originally on this list due to his constantly bowing to the worst instincts of this administration simply to get "conservative" legislation, judges, etc. he wanted, but was kicked off at the last moment upon sober reflection, to the extent that anything I may do is sober. He may yet find his way here in the future.
Kelly Anne Conway is also not on this list. Ms. Conway certainly merits some attention as the person who first explained some of cadet bone spurs whoppers by calling them "alternative facts". She was also a last minute deletion; however, due to the fact that even though she appears before the public often on behalf of this administration, and lies about every fifteen seconds when she does, she has been supplanted by Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who is the one sent out there for cover most often, and she does so willingly and must know that she is covering whoppers with bigger whoppers. There are only so many public spokespersons/press secretaries you can include herein.
Also not included is Brett Kavanaugh. While his performance at his confirmation hearing was truly awful, and I personally believe he lied right and left about just about everything, including the allegations made by Christine Blasey Ford, at the moment, he has not yet authored or joined in on any truly awful decision at the Supreme Court. Yes, I personally believe Dr. Ford, and even though what was alleged occurred more than thirty-six years ago, the judge should have expressed at least a morsel of sympathy for Dr. Ford instead of sneering at everyone to the left of him and swearing revenge on them. Give him time. I do believe he will graduate to this list next year.
Finally, not on this list is cadet bone spurs himself, whose inclusion would otherwise instantly retire lists of this type all over the world. I had to be fair to everybody else; therefore, he is not on this list. Neither is any member of his family or vice-president bone spurs, who apparently needs to be reminded that in the search for a rabbi to give an invocation at a memorial for murdered Jews, it would be nice to find somebody who has not been defrocked and is actually, well... Jewish.
The preliminaries out of the way, in reverse order, the ten worst persons in the world, U. S. political version are:
10. SUSAN COLLINS -- From the moment she announced along with Jeff Flake and Joe Manchin that she wanted an investigation into Brett Kavanaugh before voting to confirm, it was obvious to anyone who has ever followed her career that Senator Collins was simply using the "investigation" for cover. We all knew she was going to vote to confirm, just as we all knew she was going to vote for the disaster of a tax reform bill that is now sinking the future for our children. Senator Collins pretends to be a moderate; however, time after time after time she votes right alongside the worst of the worst for the worst of the worst. Nobody should ever look to her for moderation about anything again.
9. RYAN ZINCKE -- You may as well call this the cadet bone spurs cabinet representative on the list. If Scott Pruitt were still around, he would win this one hands down. Mr. Zincke, however, is the present subject of more investigations than a Sherlock Holmes novel. From a Mediterranean holiday at tax payer expense, to pay for play with his cronies, to opening up the national parks to oil and mineral drilling, to subverting the resources of this country for personal and political gain. This list goes on. Congrats Ryan.
8. DUNCAN HUNTER -- This one falls under the category of politicians under indictment or criminal investigation who are running for re-election. We could not include them all. To do so would fill up volumes of White Fluffy Duckies, which I am sure chills everyone to the bone. So here we are with Duncan Hunter. We are all used to seeing politicians get into trouble when they look out for number one before serving their constituency; however, this guy takes the cake. Using campaign funds, for among other items, to buy an airline seat for a pet rabbit gets him into the idiots' hall of fame, and then blaming it all on his wife is enough in and of itself to get Mr. Hunter on his list. We won't even get into the fact that the funds were also used to fund affairs with multiple mistresses. Amazingly, he appears to have a real good chance of being re-elected, primarily based upon the emphasis of his campaign upon the fact that his opponent is part Hispanic, part Arabic; therefore, he is obviously a terrorist in the caravan struggling to reach our southern border, if they ever do.
7. SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS -- As noted above, this could have been any one of the minions trotted out by cadet bone spurs to defend the indefensible. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, as press secretary, however, is the face of the administration above and beyond his orangeness. Sooooo... Largest crowd size ever.... We won! We won!... E-mails! Benghazi!... Fake media... Words matter, well, except for his... You get the point.
6. TED CRUZ -- He had to be on this list somewhere. His personality is odious. He may be the most disliked person in the country, even among his colleagues and his constituents. His most recent piece of brilliance was to suggest that his opponent in the present election funded the Honduran caravan. How he keeps getting re-elected and how he is leading in the polls in the current campaign is beyond my comprehension. Perhaps we should pause for a moment in looking at what may be in the water in Flint, Michigan and see what the good folks in Texas -- and there are truly great people in Texas -- have been ingesting. I will say this much, however. The fact that Mr. Cruz was the last one considered to be the reasonable alternative to cadet bone spurs in the 2016 republican primary tells you just how awful the G.O.P. candidates were.
5. BRIAN KEMP -- He is the Secretary of State of Georgia and is running for governor. He is badly behind in legitimate polling, so he is doing what any right minded losing candidate who happens to be the secretary of state would be doing -- purging voters from the rolls who are likely to vote against him. He is the one who is in charge of ensuring the integrity of the election in Georgia, but does not seem to think that his being a candidate for governor creates at least an appearance of a conflict of interest, all while he merrily rids himself of voters who will oppose him. On top of everything else, he has walked out on the final scheduled debate with his opponent so that he can appear instead at a campaign rally with cadet bone spurs, showing the world he is Making America Great Again..
4. LINDSAY GRAHAM -- This is the saddest of the persons on the list as far as I am concerned. Were it not for the outright awfulness of the next three, this year he may have been the winner. I used to believe that Senator Graham had a reasonably good sense of integrity that would prevent him from sinking into the muck along with everybody else. He appeared to be willing to actually govern rather than participate in the perpetual campaign. No more. His sneering performance at the Kavanaugh hearing dispelled that notion forever. During the 2016 presidential campaign, he correctly noted that a cadet bone spurs presidency would be an unmitigated disaster. Now, he kisses the ass of the idiot in chief at every opportunity. Just this week, when cadet bone spurs announced he was going to do away with birthright citizenship by executive order, something we all, including Senator Graham, know is unconstitutional, he immediately announced that he would introduce legislation to outlaw birthright citizenship, which he also knows is unconstitutional. One wonders if cadet bone spurs has incriminating photographs of Senator Graham.
3. SEAN HANNITY -- Clearly, the Fox Cheerleading Network had to be represented on this list. Clearly, they are mostly non-journalists, which allows them to be on a list of the worst politicians. I had to pick one, however, and while there was close competition from the likes of Jeannine Pirro and Lou Dobbs, in this instance, I will go with the guy who argued that even though he hosts a prime time show on a network that claims to be a news network, he has no obligation to tell the truth or be fair and balanced, as the network claims to be because his show is not a newscast or is even attempting to report the news. It apparently is entertainment, at least to somebody out there. In the long run, Mr. Hannity gets the honor here, as there apparently is nothing that cadet bone spurs can do that Mr. Hannity does not believe is pure genius, regardless of how blatantly wrong or even illegal it may be, and there is nothing anyone can say in response to his master that Mr. Hannity cannot attack in vile terms. He appears to be the go to guy to figure out excuses for his excesses. I am, however, impressed that he somehow managed to be one of only two other persons on the entire planet who hired Michael Cohen to represent him, although after Mr. Cohen was flipped by the feds, he apparently only hired him for about ten minutes on a very minor matter.
2. STEVEN KING -- Were it not for the next guy on the list, this genius would be the hands down winner. I will never watch reruns of "The Love Boat" again. From fraternizing with Nazis to fear mongering Hispanics, gays, and anyone else who is not lily white, to savaging Native Americans, many of whom happen to be his constituents, and then blaming it all, as he did recently, upon the "fake media", well.... do we need to go any further?
1. MITCH McCONNELL -- It takes a whole lot of chutzpah to spend eight years outright telling everybody in sight that your job is, first, to make sure President Obama did not get re-elected, then when that failed, blocking every proposal made by the Obama administration, and then turning around and complaining that the democrats were not interested in governing. Senator McConnell spent eight years doing everything he could to bring down an administration short of calling a sitting president "Boy". I will hand this much to this guy. He certainly knows how to game the system just so that his side can "win", whatever that means. Don't have enough votes to pass your tax plans? No problem. Change the rules so you need less votes to win. Don't have enough votes to confirm a thoroughly awful judicial candidate or cabinet nominee? No problem. Change the rules so you need less votes to win. Hearings? Investigations? Huh? Well, maybe if you are investigating a guy who has not been president for twenty years and his wife, who is not running for anything at the moment. Perhaps the worst part of this is the fact that this guy knew what was coming, had the power to stop or at least reign in the worst impulses of cadet bone spurs, but chose not to either in the name of "winning" or due to the fact that his wife is a member of the cabinet.
Clearly, I have left some gems out. As noted at the outset, cadet bone spurs is not on this list, as he is in a class by himself. I will brook dissent and additional names for consideration. Feel free to include me on the list as well. I may not be a politician; however, I am certainly one of the worst persons in the world.
Clearly, I have left some gems out. As noted at the outset, cadet bone spurs is not on this list, as he is in a class by himself. I will brook dissent and additional names for consideration. Feel free to include me on the list as well. I may not be a politician; however, I am certainly one of the worst persons in the world.
Saturday, September 29, 2018
thoughts on judge kavanaugh
I have been having a great deal of difficulty figuring out whether or not to say something here about Brett Kavanaugh. I actually wrote a post about a week ago on the subject, but then did not publish it. It is being written over and deleted while I type this.
I have come at this from a number of angles, not the least of which is I was not there. I did not see anything. I did not hear anything. Nobody who was there at the time has told me anything about the incident over the past thirty-six years. I have no basis for any kind of a belief about this one particular incident whatsoever.
Then I saw portions of the hearing this past Thursday. Based upon the testimony, while I suspect Dr. Blasey is telling the truth, I have come to another realization, or rather had it confirmed for me by watching Judge Kavanaugh's performance. This realization is based upon the fact that for the past thirty-six years I have made a living as a trial attorney. While the decisions of judges effect people every day, even if they do not realize it directly, as a trial attorney, not only am I affected by a decision that corporations are people, that maybe I do not have as much of a right to privacy as I thought the constitution granted me, or that friends and members of my family may not be fully protected by that constitution and the laws of this country because of who they choose to love, but I am directly effected by the person sitting at the bench every time I go into court to practice my profession.
There are thousands of Judge Kavanaughs sitting on the bench all over the country. Those of us practicing know any number of them. They are the ones that we roll our eyes over each time they are assigned to our cases. They include:
1. The judge who sat in Manhattan for several years on the trial bench in spite of the fact that the judge's ability to speak or understand English was so very tenuous that an interpreter was in the courtroom or in chambers for all conferences so the judge could understand what was being said in the court's presence. Frankly, even a translator did not help getting decisions that made sense.
2. The judge who sat in Queens who took the bench and asked how I was doing that day, and then kicked me out of the courtroom when I said I was leaving for vacation the next day, so how bad could it be? Before kicking me out, I was subjected to a long diatribe about how he did not get to take a vacation.
3. Another judge who sat in Queens years ago who would let you know that you were about to have an adverse ruling during oral argument by sticking pencils up his nostrils and staring at you with the pencils hanging there while you finished making your point.
4. The judge who sat in the Bronx and then in Brooklyn, who refused to help settle a case on trial in front of him, telling us to work it out ourselves, and then who on motion days seemed more intent on berating every single attorney in front of him over anything he could think of, rather than discuss the merits of any given application in front of him.
There are any number of other judges out there, but you get the point. Some people may be brilliant, but they are not cut out to be judges. They are in turn, condescending, rude, smug, know it all or just plain nasty. Those of us who have practiced for a while and who have risen to a certain level in the profession and within the firms we have worked at have figured out how to send young associates to court in our place on days when we are supposed to be in court in front of one of those judges. There were any number of ways to get round the nasty or just downright incompetent judges.
But we cannot get around a justice on the United States Supreme Court.
And putting aside how he is going to rule on any particular issue before him, I ask my fellow attorneys:
After watching his sneering performance before the Judiciary Committee, his blaming everyone in sight and few who were not, basically everyone except himself, his blatant disdain for anyone even an inch politically to his left, the downright anger, the hedging answers on simple questions we all knew the answers to, and finally, the completely bald statement that he is going to take this out on anyone he thinks is his enemy once he is on the bench, as if the bench in any court, let alone SCOTUS, is a place to exact revenge, is this the kind of person you want to practice law in front of? Is this the person you would trust to render a fair and impartial decision? I am, as those who know me well, an unashamed liberal. I have no confidence at all if I were to be in front of a Justice Kavanaugh that I, and more importantly, my client would be treated fairly by him if he even suspected I am a liberal.
And while it is highly unlikely that I would ever appear before a Justice Kavanaugh, especially considering that I am now semi-retired, and about to be completely retired shortly, and it is further unlikely that Justice Kavanaugh would know my political leanings were I in front of him, consider this:
He certainly is going to know that a litigant in front of him is a woman seeking justice after having been subjected to sexual harassment or abuse.
He certainly is going to know if a litigant is a person seeking protection afforded under the Constitution fleeing the certainty of persecution and perhaps death in his/her homeland and asylum in this country. He certainly is going to know at least something about that litigant if they have an Hispanic or Arabic sounding name.
He certainly is going to know that a litigant before him is not a "traditional" heterosexual if the case before him seeks the right of that person to marry a person of the same sex.
By the same token, he certainly is likely to know from looking at the record before him that a litigant before him is a rich male child from old money who has led a sheltered and pampered life, going to all the finest schools, and having just about everything handed to him in life -- you know, just like him.
So I ask this further question of my fellow attorneys, and now everybody else:
Consider the above and any number of examples you can come up with as well. Look at the expression on his face in any number of photographs from the hearing. Listen to his tone of voice and his chosen words themselves in response to questions he did not want to answer. Consider the temperament he displayed at the hearing, and then ask yourself:
Would you want this guy on the bench of the United States Supreme Court deciding any of these cases if you were the attorney or one of the litigants?
I have come at this from a number of angles, not the least of which is I was not there. I did not see anything. I did not hear anything. Nobody who was there at the time has told me anything about the incident over the past thirty-six years. I have no basis for any kind of a belief about this one particular incident whatsoever.
Then I saw portions of the hearing this past Thursday. Based upon the testimony, while I suspect Dr. Blasey is telling the truth, I have come to another realization, or rather had it confirmed for me by watching Judge Kavanaugh's performance. This realization is based upon the fact that for the past thirty-six years I have made a living as a trial attorney. While the decisions of judges effect people every day, even if they do not realize it directly, as a trial attorney, not only am I affected by a decision that corporations are people, that maybe I do not have as much of a right to privacy as I thought the constitution granted me, or that friends and members of my family may not be fully protected by that constitution and the laws of this country because of who they choose to love, but I am directly effected by the person sitting at the bench every time I go into court to practice my profession.
There are thousands of Judge Kavanaughs sitting on the bench all over the country. Those of us practicing know any number of them. They are the ones that we roll our eyes over each time they are assigned to our cases. They include:
1. The judge who sat in Manhattan for several years on the trial bench in spite of the fact that the judge's ability to speak or understand English was so very tenuous that an interpreter was in the courtroom or in chambers for all conferences so the judge could understand what was being said in the court's presence. Frankly, even a translator did not help getting decisions that made sense.
2. The judge who sat in Queens who took the bench and asked how I was doing that day, and then kicked me out of the courtroom when I said I was leaving for vacation the next day, so how bad could it be? Before kicking me out, I was subjected to a long diatribe about how he did not get to take a vacation.
3. Another judge who sat in Queens years ago who would let you know that you were about to have an adverse ruling during oral argument by sticking pencils up his nostrils and staring at you with the pencils hanging there while you finished making your point.
4. The judge who sat in the Bronx and then in Brooklyn, who refused to help settle a case on trial in front of him, telling us to work it out ourselves, and then who on motion days seemed more intent on berating every single attorney in front of him over anything he could think of, rather than discuss the merits of any given application in front of him.
There are any number of other judges out there, but you get the point. Some people may be brilliant, but they are not cut out to be judges. They are in turn, condescending, rude, smug, know it all or just plain nasty. Those of us who have practiced for a while and who have risen to a certain level in the profession and within the firms we have worked at have figured out how to send young associates to court in our place on days when we are supposed to be in court in front of one of those judges. There were any number of ways to get round the nasty or just downright incompetent judges.
But we cannot get around a justice on the United States Supreme Court.
And putting aside how he is going to rule on any particular issue before him, I ask my fellow attorneys:
After watching his sneering performance before the Judiciary Committee, his blaming everyone in sight and few who were not, basically everyone except himself, his blatant disdain for anyone even an inch politically to his left, the downright anger, the hedging answers on simple questions we all knew the answers to, and finally, the completely bald statement that he is going to take this out on anyone he thinks is his enemy once he is on the bench, as if the bench in any court, let alone SCOTUS, is a place to exact revenge, is this the kind of person you want to practice law in front of? Is this the person you would trust to render a fair and impartial decision? I am, as those who know me well, an unashamed liberal. I have no confidence at all if I were to be in front of a Justice Kavanaugh that I, and more importantly, my client would be treated fairly by him if he even suspected I am a liberal.
And while it is highly unlikely that I would ever appear before a Justice Kavanaugh, especially considering that I am now semi-retired, and about to be completely retired shortly, and it is further unlikely that Justice Kavanaugh would know my political leanings were I in front of him, consider this:
He certainly is going to know that a litigant in front of him is a woman seeking justice after having been subjected to sexual harassment or abuse.
He certainly is going to know if a litigant is a person seeking protection afforded under the Constitution fleeing the certainty of persecution and perhaps death in his/her homeland and asylum in this country. He certainly is going to know at least something about that litigant if they have an Hispanic or Arabic sounding name.
He certainly is going to know that a litigant before him is not a "traditional" heterosexual if the case before him seeks the right of that person to marry a person of the same sex.
By the same token, he certainly is likely to know from looking at the record before him that a litigant before him is a rich male child from old money who has led a sheltered and pampered life, going to all the finest schools, and having just about everything handed to him in life -- you know, just like him.
So I ask this further question of my fellow attorneys, and now everybody else:
Consider the above and any number of examples you can come up with as well. Look at the expression on his face in any number of photographs from the hearing. Listen to his tone of voice and his chosen words themselves in response to questions he did not want to answer. Consider the temperament he displayed at the hearing, and then ask yourself:
Would you want this guy on the bench of the United States Supreme Court deciding any of these cases if you were the attorney or one of the litigants?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)